wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 10:56 am
farmerman,

do you have any info you can share on the pennsylvania hearings on evolution education?
0 Replies
 
shiyacic aleksandar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 12:07 pm
farmerman wrote:
aleksandar said
Quote:
My Truth doesnt need a microscope or a telescope nor it has to be analyzed only human truths have to be analyzed because they are ephemeral,not eternal they come from emotionnal level of thoughts wheras Truth comes from God you dont need to be suspicious like a fox or a monkey.It is eternally true!


The neat thing about science is that we work on what we dont know. We dont spend a lot of time on what we do, except that where its useful to solve problems in areas that we dont yet understand. You, on the other hand, extend your "truth" to entire areas that you neither undertsand nor wish to. I call that blind faith. Its ok if you wish to use that as your personal roadmap through life, but excuse me if I say that youre about as credible as any Creationist "research institute" , full of words butno cohesive story.

Farmerman,
It sounds logic what you say and how you understand Me.
But Me is not the personnality(ego) of Sa that is talking,it is Wisdom,and universal conscience so Im refering to the Self only...do you understand?

Sa is not ambitionning to become the "boss",a priest or a guru,he,he...
Truth is one.Sacred Truth is one.It comes from the source(God)..

Human truth is judgemental,not impartial.It is dualistic! It represents ignorence and when a man is dual minded he remains ignorent!Dont cosider a diploma as a value...

Be One with the divine and become eligible to sacred Truth. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 04:06 am
shiyacic aleksandar wrote:
Farmerman,
It sounds logic what you say and how you understand Me.
But Me is not the personnality(ego) of Sa that is talking,it is Wisdom,and universal conscience so Im refering to the Self only...do you understand?


I can understand that you're French and English may not be your native language, but seriously, you aren't making sense.

Who is this Sa you talk of and what does that mean?

Quote:
Sa is not ambitionning to become the "boss",a priest or a guru,he,he...
Truth is one.Sacred Truth is one.It comes from the source(God)..

Human truth is judgemental,not impartial.It is dualistic! It represents ignorence and when a man is dual minded he remains ignorent!Dont cosider a diploma as a value...

Be One with the divine and become eligible to sacred Truth. :wink:


I asked you a question before. That is, how can you be sure that your Truth comes from God? What proof do you have?

If you cannot prove it, how can you be sure it is true?

For example, if I were to say your God is nothing more than a sick sadistic demon that encourages people to kill themselves through his false promises of Heaven and has fix eyes, seven buttocks and a human head sticking out of his head, how could I prove that to be true?

I cannot prove it to be true.

So if you cannot prove your belief to be true then how can you be sure that it is true?

Just because you know, doesn't mean it is true.

If I said I knew your God was actually triple-breasted whore, does that mean it is true?

Sorry about the blasphemies, but I was trying to make a point here by using some of the most visually captivating imagery possible.
0 Replies
 
shiyacic aleksandar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 04:40 am
SA is Shiyacic Aleksandar and it was given at the birth of my body.Its my name!
Truth as well as God is One!
There are not 2 Gods it is impossible!
Unity is a sacred Truth...
Observe your Great president Lincoln and learn from Him about self sacrifice and the will power of unification!He was a great soul and overshadowed by God...He was totally Divine.
An evil mind came and killed Him one day...How is that possible,why God didnot prevent him from this murder?
This is a great mistery...
Only when you begin to understand life misteries in their root youll be able to understand the objective world...
I call it spirituality,or sacred wisdom but you can call it by another appelation! :wink:
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 06:22 am
SA, you certainly are entitled to your logic, as well I am entitled to not pay any attention to it.
You missed my point about ignorance. To NOT know something, just fires us up to start working on the science. Ignorance is the fuel of science.
As far as your "sacred truth" Im sorry, theres no attempts to try to understand anything.There are so many versions of sacred truths out there that I wonder whether you all realize that your bumping into each other's revelations.
If you wish to work hard to understand nothing, I cant stop you. Just seems an awful waste of a mind to me.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 08:22 am
farmerman, I admire your patience.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 11:45 am
"If you wish to work hard to understand nothing, I cant stop you. Just seems an awful waste of a mind to me."

It will be a good start if most people of religion understood that their beliefs are based on an accident of birth.

That their culture and family beliefs preceeded anything resulted in their belief that their's is the true religion.

Going backward in history, they will find that all religions were created by man - pre and post jesus.

That they can translate that to mean "it's the word of god" has no rational or logical explanation.


All religious' beliefs become handicaps; it doesn't allow for other possibilites.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 03:01 pm
Ac 1:7
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Are there other times and other beginnings?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 11:40 pm
The Scientist

Come up to meet you, tell you I'm sorry
You don't know how lovely you are

I had to find you
Tell you I need you
Tell you I set you apart

Tell me your secrets
And ask me your questions
Oh let's go back to the start

Running in circles
Coming up tails
Heads on a silence apart

Nobody said it was easy
Oh it's such a shame for us to part
Nobody said it was easy
No one ever said it would be this hard

Oh take me back to the start

I was just guessing
At numbers and figures
Pulling your puzzles apart

Questions of science
Science and progress
Do not speak as loud as my heart

Tell me you love me
Come back and haunt me
Oh and I rush to the start

Running in circles
Chasing our tails
Coming back as we are

Nobody said it was easy
Oh it's such a shame for us to part
Nobody said it was easy
No one ever said it would be so hard

I'm going back to the start


Cold Play
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 07:54 am
wandeljw. I recieved some info from a colleague that a series of pre-trial meetings have been held among the combatants in the Dover case. I suppose it was to lay down ground rules and establish some facts on which all cn agree.

The plaintiffs brought up a critique of the Pandas Thumb. In its sought after admission as evidence, the palintiffs have gotten the earliest edition which, as a major ooops by the publisher (Buehler Books), it had mentioned Creation and had a line or two slipped in that had said that the material contained herein was a Christian Based alternative to natural Selection.
For some reason the plaintiffs are seeking to challenge the admissability of this book. I would just sit on this information and use it in deps and in trial. After all, the whole theory of this case is that the concept of ID is just Creationism with another set of rules. IMHO, I think the plaintiffs are wasting some good ammo here.
Im not a lawyer but I am constantly exposed to how many individual attorneys actually think through a case.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 11:48 am
farmerman,

Thanks for the info. There seems to be a lot of preparation before the September trial.

(The book they are arguing about is "Of Pandas and People". "Panda's Thumb" is Stephen Jay Gould's book.)
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 12:01 pm
farmerman wrote:
SA, you certainly are entitled to your logic, as well I am entitled to not pay any attention to it.
You missed my point about ignorance. To NOT know something, just fires us up to start working on the science. Ignorance is the fuel of science.
As far as your "sacred truth" Im sorry, theres no attempts to try to understand anything.There are so many versions of sacred truths out there that I wonder whether you all realize that your bumping into each other's revelations.
If you wish to work hard to understand nothing, I cant stop you. Just seems an awful waste of a mind to me.


FM you are oblivious to the fact that one of those variations of truth "may" bring a man/woman profit in this life and any life to come...
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 11:52 pm
xingu wrote:
To Creationists the writers of the Bible were not ordinary men. They were selected by God to put his message to words. That's why they believe the Bible is the word of God, inerrant and perfect; because it came from a perfect God.

The problem is the selected men that supposedly received this word from God believed the earth was flat, the sun moved around the earth, the earth was the center of the universe and the stars were small twinkely lights, not suns and galaxies.




Almost 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament stated:

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth....

Doesn't sound like a Flat Earther to me.



The Bible describes the Earth as suspended in space:

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

This was at a time (1500BC) when most ancient peoples believed the Earth rested on a foundation of some kind.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 08:04 am
real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
To Creationists the writers of the Bible were not ordinary men. They were selected by God to put his message to words. That's why they believe the Bible is the word of God, inerrant and perfect; because it came from a perfect God.

The problem is the selected men that supposedly received this word from God believed the earth was flat, the sun moved around the earth, the earth was the center of the universe and the stars were small twinkely lights, not suns and galaxies.




Almost 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament stated:

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth....

Doesn't sound like a Flat Earther to me.



The Bible describes the Earth as suspended in space:

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

This was at a time (1500BC) when most ancient peoples believed the Earth rested on a foundation of some kind.
Yeah, what you said. Xingu has been told this once before. I think he forgot. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:26 am
real life wrote:
This was at a time (1500BC) when most ancient peoples believed the Earth rested on a foundation of some kind.


This is a statement without foundation. While it may be true, you have done nothing to establish the case. Furthermore, if you actually believe that the texts which comprise the modern "bible" were compiled that long ago, i have a bridge to sell you.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:30 am
Quote:
Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth....


There were two types of flat earth; the square flat earth, as believed by the Egyptians and the round (circle) flat earth that the Babylonians believed in. The authors of the Bible contradicted themselves in that they portrayed the earth as a flat square and a round circle, not a ball or sphere. People may have been very ignorant about science in those days but they knew the difference between a ball and a circle. The authors clearly stated circle (chuwg), not ball (duwr) when describing the earth.

Daniel 4:10;
As I was looking,
I saw a tree of great height at the center of the earth;
The tree grew and became strong,
Reaching with its top to the sky
And visible to the earth's farthest bounds.

If the earth was a sphere there could not possibly be a tree in its center; it could if it was flat.

Quote:
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.


According to NAB north is a synonym for firmament, a dome that rested on top of the earth. The passage would read "He stretches out the dome over the empty space." In other words the dome was not supported in the middle.

We see this word north in Isaiah 14:13
You thought in your mind,
I will scale the heavens;
I will set my throne high above the stars of God,
I will sit on the mountains where the gods meet
In the far recesses of the north

More then one god, I might add.

The Greeks and Hindus believed the earth rested on an object. The Greeks believed Atlas held up the earth. The Hindus believed it rested on the backs of four elephants who, in turn, rested on the back of a giant turtle that swam in a vast sea.

The authors of the Bible, or at least one of them, believed the flat earth rested on pillars but nothing else.

1 Samual 2:8
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

Heaven, the dome or firmament, also rested on pillars.
Job 26:11
The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

There are so many more passages that show the belief of a flat earth by the Hebrews who wrote the OT. History shows us that their neighbors also believed in the flat earth as well, a belief that was in existence before the Hebrews wrote their books.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:50 am
How can the "word of god" screw up so much? After all, he "created" this planet and everything that's on it and around it.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:13 am
real life wrote:

Almost 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament stated:

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth....

Doesn't sound like a Flat Earther to me.


Doesn't sound much like a sphere either.

real life wrote:


The Bible describes the Earth as suspended in space:



No it doesn't. It describes the Earth as "hangeth upon nothing", which is meaningless and useless.

real life wrote:


Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

This was at a time (1500BC) when most ancient peoples believed the Earth rested on a foundation of some kind.


The only reason you interpret these quotes to mean what they do is because you have actual facts to compare them to. And you didn't get those facts from the Bible, you got them from science, and are now desperately seeking to find the same information in the vagueness of lyrical artistry which permeates the bible (which has been translated and re-translated so many times by people who have imparted their own guesses into the translation process that the original document has been lost in history).

In short; you're really reaching.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 12:51 pm
shiyacic aleksandar wrote:
SA is Shiyacic Aleksandar and it was given at the birth of my body.Its my name!


Oh, I'm sorry. It's just because it appeared as Sa and not SA, I thought it was a word and not an acronym.

Quote:
Truth as well as God is One!
There are not 2 Gods it is impossible!


Nobody said there were two Gods.

Quote:
Unity is a sacred Truth...
Observe your Great president Lincoln and learn from Him about self sacrifice and the will power of unification!He was a great soul and overshadowed by God...He was totally Divine.


He wasn't my President.

Quote:
An evil mind came and killed Him one day...How is that possible,why God didnot prevent him from this murder?
This is a great mistery...
Only when you begin to understand life misteries in their root youll be able to understand the objective world...
I call it spirituality,or sacred wisdom but you can call it by another appelation! :wink:


Obviously, speaking to you is the biggest waste of time anyone could ever commit. Ignoring my questions and answering with vague cliches. It is not worth my time listening to you. You have worn my patience to the bone.

Creationism is less true than evolutionism, but is more true than human beings. I do not believe in human beings anymore. What is there to believe? They are merely a fantasy. Non-existant.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 01:08 pm
The term "north" is of a Teutonic/Scandanavian origin (there are about 6 different related origin words) The KJ Biblical quotes from Isaiah 14 are probably later attempts at rectifying the terms by adding these "north" refernces. It would be neat to see what the original verses said , really.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 127
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 09:36:00